Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #673895 > unrolled thread

BEING exists, Nothingness does not.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-30 01:55 +0000
    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-30 07:52 +0000
    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-30 10:40 +0200
    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-30 13:38 -0700
      Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 12:10 +0000
        Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 23:03 +0200
          Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:55 +0000
            Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-03 22:52 +0200
              Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ken Tulohonov <onvn@onotlvt.ru> - 2026-10-03 21:38 +0000
                Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-03 22:53 -0700
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-03 23:11 -0700
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-04 00:40 -0700
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-04 11:13 +0000
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-04 09:55 -0700
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-04 11:27 -0700
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Dennie Duronov <urnd@rnd.ru> - 2026-10-04 21:08 +0000
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-05 10:48 -0700
                Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-04 14:03 +0200
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ambrose Bazanov <an@mao.ru> - 2026-10-04 21:04 +0000
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-05 19:44 +0200
                      Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 14:35 -0700
              Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-04 11:04 +0000
                Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-04 17:58 +0200
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-05 08:59 +0000
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-05 13:53 +0200
                      Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 07:53 -0700
                        Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 09:46 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#673895 — BEING exists, Nothingness does not.

The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does not.
Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness" wherein observable 
time (To)—as opposed to proper, real time (Tr) and anisochrony time 
(€t)—is conceptualized merely as the curve traced by the tip of the To 
vector during the analysis of an accelerated reference frame. Yet, this is 
incorrect; what actually matters is the magnitude of the vector itself at 
any given moment.
If one mistakenly adopts the former view, an unsightly "corner" appears in 
the model.
But that is not the reality. It is this abstract notion—conceived by the 
human mind—that creates an artificial and inexplicable singularity.

This acceleration curve has no real existence; what truly exists
is proper time, anisochrony, and observable time (whether terrestrial or 
in the laboratory)—represented by the vector OP at any given instant.

Once this useless abstract concept is banished from the mind, the problem 
vanishes, and the "corner" disappears. When the engine of an accelerating 
rocket cuts out, the craft simply continues its journey smoothly, in 
Galilean motion.

R.H. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#673898

That's certainly an elegant way to eliminate a discontinuity: declare that 
the thing displaying it doesn't exist. :-)

Unfortunately, the "corner" isn't in the rocket's trajectory. It's in your 
equations.

At the same Vr:

accelerated:
dTo/dTr = [1 + Vr^2/(2c^2)] / sqrt[1 + Vr^2/(4c^2)]

Galilean:
dTo/dTr = sqrt[1 + Vr^2/c^2]

For example, at Vr = sqrt(2)c:

accelerated: 1.63299...
Galilean:    1.73205...

Same Vr, two different values.

You may banish the curve, Nothingness, abstract thought, and half of 
metaphysics if you like. Those two numbers stubbornly refuse to disappear.

And your phi = Vrm/Vri was introduced precisely to explain the transition 
between them.

So the corner hasn't vanished.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#673906

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:

> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does not.

You are guilty of empty set denialism,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#673971

Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does not.
> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness" 

"Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.


"Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.

"Nothingness" is a religion.


Look at who originated "Nothingness".







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674080

On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> Richard Hachel wrote:
>> 
>> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does
>> not.
>> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
> 
> "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
> 
> 
> "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
> 
> "Nothingness" is a religion.
> 
> 
> Look at who originated "Nothingness".

1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a 
serious crime. Space is nothing, that's why it can extend to infinity in 
all directions. Nothing does not need two ends. Within it are regions 
containing 'somethings', which are called 'universes'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674116

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> 
> >> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does
> >> not.
> >> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
> > 
> > "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
> > 
> > 
> > "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
> > 
> > "Nothingness" is a religion.
> > 
> > 
> > Look at who originated "Nothingness".
> 
> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a 
> serious crime.

Source for this papal rule?

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674156

On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:03:31 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> > Richard Hachel wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does
>> >> not.
>> >> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
>> > 
>> > "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
>> > 
>> > "Nothingness" is a religion.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Look at who originated "Nothingness".
>> 
>> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
>> serious crime.
> 
> Source for this papal rule?

Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of money' 
or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
 
> Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674157

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:03:31 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness does
> >> >> not.
> >> >> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
> >> > 
> >> > "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
> >> > 
> >> > "Nothingness" is a religion.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Look at who originated "Nothingness".
> >> 
> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
> >> serious crime.
> > 
> > Source for this papal rule?
> 
> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of money'
> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.

OK, no source, just loose talk,

Jan
(not surprised)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674158

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
>> >> serious crime.
>> > 
>> > Source for this papal rule?
>> 
>> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
>> money'
>> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> 
> OK, no source, just loose talk,

not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does 
not. No

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674159

Ken Tulohonov wrote:
> 
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> >> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
> >> >> serious crime.
> >> >
> >> > Source for this papal rule?
> >>
> >> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
> >> money'
> >> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> >
> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
> 
> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does
> not. No

There are no natural numbers since numbers don't exist out there
naturally.

Numbers are simply what one reads into, not out of.




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674160

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Ken Tulohonov wrote:
> >
> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > >> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
> > >> >> serious crime.
> > >> >
> > >> > Source for this papal rule?
> > >>
> > >> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
> > >> money'
> > >> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> > >
> > > OK, no source, just loose talk,
> >
> > not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does
> > not. No
> 
> There are no natural numbers since numbers don't exist out there
> naturally.
> 
> Numbers are simply what one reads into, not out of.

When Ai first came out
it was terrible at Math.

Ai was thinking..."Where da fuck do these humans get these numbers
from????"

Then the Ai said, "Wait a minute, they add letters to these numbers???
"Are they words?"




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674162

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Ken Tulohonov wrote:
> > >
> > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
> > > >> >> serious crime.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Source for this papal rule?
> > > >>
> > > >> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
> > > >> money'
> > > >> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> > > >
> > > > OK, no source, just loose talk,
> > >
> > > not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does
> > > not. No
> >
> > There are no natural numbers since numbers don't exist out there
> > naturally.
> >
> > Numbers are simply what one reads into, not out of.
> 
> When Ai first came out
> it was terrible at Math.
> 
> Ai was thinking..."Where da fuck do these humans get these numbers
> from????"
> 
> Then the Ai said, "Wait a minute, they add letters to these numbers???
> "Are they words?"


Humans 'project' numbers into things...



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674169

On Sat, 03 Oct 2026 22:53:41 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> Ken Tulohonov wrote:
>> 
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> 
>> >> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero
>> >> >> was a serious crime.
>> >> >
>> >> > Source for this papal rule?
>> >>
>> >> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
>> >> money'
>> >> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
>> >
>> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
>> 
>> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does
>> not. No
> 
> There are no natural numbers since numbers don't exist out there
> naturally.
> 
> Numbers are simply what one reads into, not out of.

Wrong! If there was absolutely nothing, the laws of mathematics would 
still hold. In fact the whole universe might be just a mathematical 
possibility and therefore IS. Murphy's lesser known law applies. "If 
something CAN happen it WILL"...and here we are!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674177

HenryWilson wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2026 22:53:41 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Ken Tulohonov wrote:
> >>
> >> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero
> >> >> >> was a serious crime.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Source for this papal rule?
> >> >>
> >> >> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
> >> >> money'
> >> >> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> >> >
> >> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
> >>
> >> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does
> >> not. No
> >
> > There are no natural numbers since numbers don't exist out there
> > naturally.
> >
> > Numbers are simply what one reads into, not out of.
> 
> Wrong! If there was absolutely nothing, the laws of mathematics would
> still hold. In fact the whole universe might be just a mathematical
> possibility and therefore IS. Murphy's lesser known law applies. "If
> something CAN happen it WILL"...and here we are!


Let me give you a simple example...


You put a table in
front of you,

you put a lollipop
on the table

you put another lollipop
on the table

you put another lollipop
on the table

You probably by now
counted three lollipos
on the table.


Do you see a number 3 on the table?

There is no number three, you just read the number 3 into it.

Numbers don't exist.


There are no numbers out there..


it's all in your mind.

The universe is not mathematical.

There aren't three lollipos on the table.

It's just 

you put a lollipop
on the table

you put another lollipop
on the table

you put another lollipop
on the table

patterns
repeated events

Red lollipop
yellow lollipop
Red lollipop

There are no numbers.









-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674182

On 10/04/2026 04:13 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2026 22:53:41 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> Ken Tulohonov wrote:
>>>
>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero
>>>>>>> was a serious crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source for this papal rule?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
>>>>> money'
>>>>> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> OK, no source, just loose talk,
>>>
>>> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does
>>> not. No
>>
>> There are no natural numbers since numbers don't exist out there
>> naturally.
>>
>> Numbers are simply what one reads into, not out of.
>
> Wrong! If there was absolutely nothing, the laws of mathematics would
> still hold. In fact the whole universe might be just a mathematical
> possibility and therefore IS. Murphy's lesser known law applies. "If
> something CAN happen it WILL"...and here we are!
>


That "space exists" is usually given in the negative since Aristotle
with "nature abhors a vacuum", yet one must acknowledge that it's
simply the result of an inductive argument and sticking with "substance
exists", that yet "substrate exists" is certainly part of modern
theories like physics' with Einstein's.


Half-Aristotleans and other adherents to "the invincible ignorance
of inductive inference" plainly _fail_ in the super-classical, which is.



Zero, one, and infinity are the regular singular points of the
hypergeometric.


"Numbers exist" is not only a usual account of platonism the
mathematical platonism, also they say you don't exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674187

The Starmaker wrote:

> Ken Tulohonov wrote:
>> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does
>> not. No
> 
> There are no natural numbers since numbers don't exist out there
> naturally.
> 
> Numbers are simply what one reads into, not out of.

imbecile, integers exists all around you, take a proper look, and pay 
attention what they are

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674195

Dennie Duronov wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Ken Tulohonov wrote:
> >> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero, but the Roman numbers does
> >> not. No
> >
> > There are no natural numbers since numbers don't exist out there
> > naturally.
> >
> > Numbers are simply what one reads into, not out of.
> 
> imbecile, integers exists all around you, take a proper look, and pay
> attention what they are


a "proper look" would mean ...projection from inside you outside.


ooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, i see intergers everywhere!
there is one on my potatoe chip next to the flying saucer.

lucy in the sky with diamonds





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674172

Ken Tulohonov <onvn@onotlvt.ru> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> >> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
> >> >> serious crime.
> >> > 
> >> > Source for this papal rule?
> >> 
> >> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
> >> money'
> >> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> > 
> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
> 
> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero,

That depends on which mathematician you consult about it.

> but the Roman numbers does not. No.

Romans did not calculate with their numbers.
They used an abacus,
and their numbers were just a convenient notation
for the state of the abacus.

The zero is implicit in any abacus. (the empty position)
There just is no need to write it out,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674186

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
>> 
>> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero,
> 
> That depends on which mathematician you consult about it.
> 
>> but the Roman numbers does not. No.
> 
> Romans did not calculate with their numbers.
> They used an abacus,
> and their numbers were just a convenient notation for the state of the
> abacus.
> 
> The zero is implicit in any abacus. (the empty position) There just is
> no need to write it out,

thanks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674194

Ambrose Bazanov <an@mao.ru> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> >> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
> >> 
> >> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero,
> > 
> > That depends on which mathematician you consult about it.
> > 
> >> but the Roman numbers does not. No.
> > 
> > Romans did not calculate with their numbers.
> > They used an abacus,
> > and their numbers were just a convenient notation for the state of the
> > abacus.
> > 
> > The zero is implicit in any abacus. (the empty position) There just is
> > no need to write it out,
> 
> thanks

For further information:
It was pope Sylvester II (~946 papacy 999-1003)
who reintroduced the abacus, and lots more of arabic science,
in Western Europe to make arithmetic practical again.
He also knew about hindu-arabic numerals.
He was a scientist in his own right. Much more at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II>

The whole idea of dumb priest and popes suppressing all knowledge,
and believing the Earth to be flat,
is an idea from 19th century (mostly American)
anti-clericalist propaganda,

Jan



  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web